The city adopts this chapter under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.120 and the SEPA Rules, WAC 197-11-904. (Ord. 914 § 1, 1995; Ord. 697 § 1.1, 1984).

This chapter contains the city’s SEPA procedures and policies. The SEPA Rules, Chapter 197-11, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) will be used in conjunction with this code. (Ord. 697 § 1.2, 1984).

This article contains the basic requirements that apply to the SEPA process. It also contains uniform usage and definitions of terms under SEPA. The city adopts the following sections of the WAC by reference:

(Ord. 697 § 2.1, 1984).

In addition to those definitions contained within WAC 197-11-700 through 799, when used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the context indicates otherwise:
A. “Department” means any division, subdivision or organizational unit of the city established by ordinance, rule or order.
B. “DNS” means determination of nonsignificance.
C. “DS” means determination of significance.
D. “Early notice” means the city’s response to an applicant stating whether it considers issuance of a determination of significance likely for the applicant’s proposal (mitigated DNS procedures).
E. “EIS” means environmental impact statement.
F. “Ordinance” means the ordinance, resolution or other procedure used by the city to adopt regulatory requirements.
G. “SEPA rules” means WAC Chapter 197-11 adopted by the Department of Ecology.
H. “WAC” means Washington Administrative Code. (Ord. 697 § 2.2, 1984).

A. For those proposals for which the city is the lead agency, the responsible official shall be the city clerk-treasurer or her/his designee.
B. For all proposals for which the city is the lead agency, the responsible official shall make the threshold determination, supervise scoping and preparation of any required EIS, and perform any other functions assigned to the “lead agency” or “responsible official” by those sections of the SEPA rules that were adopted by reference in WAC 173-806-020. (Ord. 697 § 2.3, 1984).

The city shall retain all documents required by the SEPA rules WAC 197-11 and make them available in accordance with RCW Chapter 42.17, at the office of the city clerk-treasurer, Kalama City Hall, 320 North First, Kalama, Washington 98625. (Ord. 697 § 2.4, 1984).

A. When the city receives an application for or initiates a proposal that involves a nonexempt action, the city clerk-treasurer or her/his designee shall determine the lead agency for that proposal under WAC 197-11-050 and WAC 197-11-922 through WAC 197-11-940; unless the lead agency has been previously determined.
B. When the city is the lead agency for a proposal, the responsible official shall supervise compliance with the threshold determination requirements, and if an environmental impact statement (EIS) is necessary, shall supervise preparation of the EIS.
C. When the city is not the lead agency of a proposal, all departments of the city shall use and consider, as appropriate, either the determination of nonsignificance (DNS) or the final EIS of the lead agency in making decisions on the proposal. No city department shall prepare or require preparation of a DNS or EIS in addition to that prepared by the lead agency, unless required under WAC 197-11-600. In some cases, the city may conduct supplemental environmental review under WAC 197-11-600.
D. If the city or any of its departments receives a lead agency determination made by another agency that appears inconsistent with the criteria of WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-940, it may object to the determination. Any objection must be made to the agency originally making the determination and resolved within fifteen days of receipt of the determination, or the city must petition the Department of Ecology for a lead agency determination under WAC 197-11-946 within the fifteen-day time period. Any such petition on behalf of the city shall be initiated by the city clerk-treasurer or her/his designee.
E. The city clerk-treasurer or her/his designee is authorized to make agreements as to lead agency status or shared lead agency duties for a proposal under WAC 197-11-942 and 197-11-944.
F. When the responsible official makes a lead agency determination for a private project, she/he shall require sufficient information from the applicant to identify which other agencies have jurisdiction over the proposal (that is: which agencies require nonexempt licenses). (Ord. 697 § 2.5, 1984).

The following time limits (expressed in calendar days) shall apply when the city processes licenses for all private projects and those governmental proposals submitted to the city by other agencies:
A. Categorical Exemptions. The city shall identify whether an action is categorically exempt within seven days of receiving a completed application.
B. Threshold Determinations. The city should complete threshold determinations that can be based solely upon review of the environmental checklist for the proposal within fifteen days of the date an applicant’s adequate application and complete checklist are submitted.
Complex proposals where additional information is needed and/or those proposals accompanied by an inaccurate checklist may require additional time. Should additional time be necessary or upon request by an applicant, the responsible official shall select a date for making a threshold determination and notify the applicant of such date in writing. In no event shall the responsible official unreasonably delay the threshold determination. (Ord. 697 § 2.6, 1984).

A. For nonexempt proposals, the DNS or FEIS for the proposal shall accompany staff recommendations to any appropriate advisory body and decision-making body.
B. If the city’s only action on a proposal is a decision on a building permit or other license that requires detailed project plans and specifications, the applicant may request in writing that the city conduct environmental review prior to submission of the detailed plans and specifications. (Ord. 697 § 2.7, 1984).

This article contains the rules for deciding whether a proposal has a “probably significant, adverse environmental impact” requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS) to be prepared. This article also contains rules for categorical exemptions and rules for evaluating the impacts of proposals not requiring an EIS as well as the application of exemptions and flexible thresholds. The city adopts the following sections of the WAC by reference, as supplemented in this article:

(Ord. 697 § 3.1, 1984).

A. The city establishes the following exempt levels for minor new construction under WAC 197-11-800(l)(b) based on local conditions:
1. For residential dwelling units in WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(i) that have not gone through SEPA review as part of another project: up to twenty units in an R-1 zoning district; up to twelve units in an R-2 zoning district;
2. For agricultural structures in WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(ii), up to ten thousand square feet;
3. For office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage buildings in WAC 197-11-800(l)(b)(iii), up to six thousand square feet and up to twenty parking spaces;
4. For parking lots in WAC 197-11-800(l)(b)(iv), up to twenty parking spaces;
5. For landfills and excavations in WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(v), up to five hundred cubic yards.
B. Whenever the city establishes new exempt levels under this section, it shall send them to the Department of Ecology, Headquarters Office, Olympia, Washington, under WAC 197-11-800 (1)(c). (Ord. 697 § 3.2, 1984).

A. When the city receives an application for a license or initiates a proposal, the responsible official shall determine whether the license and/or the proposal is exempt. The determination that a proposal is exempt shall be final and not subject to administrative review. If a proposal is exempt, none of the procedural requirements of this chapter apply to the proposal. The city shall not require completion of an environmental checklist for an exempt proposal.
B. In determining whether or not a proposal is exempt, the responsible official shall make certain the proposal is properly defined and shall identify the governmental licenses required (WAC 197-11-060). If a proposal includes exempt and nonexempt actions, the responsible official shall determine the lead agency, even if the license application that triggers the department’s consideration is exempt.
C. If a proposal includes both exempt and nonexempt actions, the city may authorize exempt actions prior to compliance with the procedural requirements of this chapter, except that:
1. The city shall not give authorization for:
a. Any nonexempt action;
b. Any action that would have an adverse environmental impact; or
c. Any action that would limit the choice of alternatives.
2. A department may withhold approval of an exempt action that would lead to modification of the physical environment, when such modification would serve no purpose if nonexempt action(s) were not approved.
3. A department may withhold approval of exempt actions that would lead to substantial financial expenditures by a private applicant when the expenditures would serve no purpose if nonexempt action(s) were not approved. (Ord. 697 § 3.3, 1984).

A. A completed environmental checklist (or a copy), in the form provided in WAC 197-11-960, shall be filed at the same time as an application for a permit, license, certificate or other approval not specifically exempted in this chapter; except, a checklist is not needed if the city and applicant agree an EIS is required, SEPA compliance has been completed or SEPA compliance has been initiated by another agency. The city shall use the environmental checklist to determine the lead agency and, if the city is the lead agency, for making the threshold determination.
B. For private proposals, the city will require the applicant to complete the environmental checklist, providing assistance as necessary. For city proposals, the department initiating the proposal shall complete the environmental checklist for the proposal. (Ord. 697 § 3.4, 1984).

A. As provided in this section and in WAC 197-11-350, the responsible official may issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to or clarifications of the proposal made by the applicant.
B. An applicant may request in writing early notice of whether a determination of significance (DS) is likely under WAC 197-11-350. The request must:
1. Follow submission of a permit application and environmental checklist for a nonexempt proposal for which the city is lead agency; and
2. Precede the city’s actual threshold determination for the proposal.
C. The responsible official should respond to the request for early notice within ten working days. The response shall:
1. Be written;
2. State whether the city currently considers issuance of a DS likely and, if so, indicate the general or specific area(s) of concern that are leading the city to consider a DS; and
3. State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the indicated impacts, revising the environmental checklist and/or permit application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications.
D. As much as possible, the city should assist the applicant with identification of impacts to the extent necessary to formulate mitigation measures.
E. When an applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised environmental checklist, the city shall base its threshold determination on the changed or clarified proposal and should make the determination within fifteen calendar days of receiving the changed or clarified proposal:
1. If the city indicated specific mitigation measures in its response to the request for early notice, and the applicant changed or clarified the proposal to include those specific mitigation measures, the city shall issue and circulate a determination of nonsignificance under WAC 197-11-340(2).
2. If the city indicated areas of concern, but did not indicate specific mitigation measures that would allow it to issue a DNS, the city shall make the threshold determination, issuing a DNS or DS as appropriate.
3. The applicant’s proposed mitigation measures (clarifications, changes or conditions) must be in writing and must be specific. For example, proposals to “control noise” or “prevent stormwater runoff” are inadequate, whereas proposals to “muffle machinery to X decibel” or “construct two-hundred-foot stormwater retention pond at Y location” are adequate.
4. Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated DNS may be incorporated in the DNS by reference to agency staff reports, studies or other documents.
F. A mitigated DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2), requiring a fifteen-calendar-day comment period and public notice.
G. Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the permit decision and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit, or enforced in any manner specifically prescribed by the city.
H. If the city’s tentative decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation measures that were incorporated in a mitigated DNS for the proposal, the city should evaluate the threshold determination to assure consistency with WAC 197-11-340(3)(a) (withdrawal of DNS).
I. The city’s written response under subsection B of this section shall not be construed as a determination of significance. In addition, preliminary discussion of clarifications or changes to a proposal, as opposed to a written request for early notice, shall not bind the city to consider the clarifications or changes in its threshold determination. (Ord. 697 § 3.5, 1984).

This article contains the rules for preparing environmental impact statements. The city adopts the following sections of the WAC by reference, as supplemented by this article:

(Ord. 697 § 4.1, 1984).

A. Preparation of draft and final EISs and supplemental EISs is the responsibility of the responsible official. Before the city issues an EIS, the responsible official shall be satisfied that it complies with this chapter and WAC Chapter 197-11.
B. The draft and final EIS or supplemental EIS shall be prepared by city staff, the applicant, or by a consultant selected by the city or the applicant. If the responsible official requires an EIS for a proposal and determines that someone other than the city will prepare the EIS, the responsible official shall notify the applicant immediately after completion of the threshold determination. The responsible official shall also notify the applicant of the city’s procedure for EIS preparation, including approval of the draft and final EIS prior to distribution.
C. The city may require an applicant to provide information the city does not possess, including specific investigations. However, the applicant is not required to supply information that is not required under this chapter or that is being requested from another agency. (This does not apply to information the city may request under another ordinance or statute.)
D. The following additional elements, as determined by the responsible official on a case-by-case basis, may be considered a part of the environment for the purpose of EIS content but do not add to the criteria for threshold determinations or perform any other function or purpose under this chapter:
1. Employment;
2. Economy;
3. Tax base;
4. Cultural factors;
5. Quality of life;
6. Neighborhood cohesion;
7. Sociological factors. (Ord. 697 § 4.2, 1984).

This article contains rules for consulting, commenting and responding on all environmental documents under SEPA, including rules for public notice and hearings. The city adopts the following sections of the WAC by reference, as supplemented in this article:

(Ord. 697 § 5.1, 1984).

A. Whenever the city issues a DNS under WAC 197-11-340(2) or a DS under WAC 197-11-360(3) the city shall give public notice as follows:
1. If public notice is required for a nonexempt license, the notice shall state whether a DS or DNS has been issued and when comments are due.
2. If no public notice is required for the permit or approval, the city shall give notice of the DNS or DS by at least one of the following:
a. Posting the property, for site-specific proposals;
b. Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, city or general area where the proposal is located;
c. Notifying public or private groups which have expressed interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered;
d. Notifying the news media;
e. Placing notices in appropriate regional, neighborhood, ethnic or trade journals; and/or
f. Publishing notice in agency newsletters and/or sending notice to agency mailing lists (either general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas).
3. Whenever the city issues a DS under WAC 197-11-360(3), the city shall state the scoping procedure for the proposal in the DS as required in WAC 197-11-408.
B. Whenever the city issues a draft EIS under WAC 197-11-455(5) or a supplemental EIS under WAC 197-11-620, notice of the availability of those documents shall be given by:
1. Indicating the availability of the DEIS in any public notice required for a nonexempt license, and by at least one of the following methods;
2. Posting of property, for site-specific proposals;
3. Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, city or general area where the proposal is located;
4. Notifying public or private groups which have expressed interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered;
5. Notifying the news media;
6. Placing notices in appropriate regional, neighborhood, ethnic or trade journals; and/or
7. Publishing notice in agency newsletters and/or sending notice to agency mailing lists (either general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas).
C. Whenever possible, the city shall integrate the public notice required under this section with existing notice procedures for the city’s nonexempt permit(s) or approval(s) required for the proposal.
D. The city may require an applicant to complete the public notice requirements for the applicant’s proposal at his or her expense. (Ord. 697 § 5.2, 1984).

A. The city clerk-treasurer or her/his designee shall be responsible for preparation of written comments for the city in response to a consultation request prior to a threshold determination, participation in scoping, or reviewing a draft EIS.
B. The city clerk-treasurer shall be responsible for the city’s compliance with WAC 197-11-550 whenever the city is a consulted agency and is authorized to develop operating procedures that will ensure that responses to consultation requests are prepared in a timely fashion and include data from all appropriate departments of the city. (Ord. 697 § 5.3, 1984).

This article contains rules for using and supplementing existing environmental documents prepared under SEPA or NEPA for the city’s own environmental compliance. The city adopts the following sections of the WAC by reference:

(Ord. 697 § 6.1, 1984).

This article contains rules and policies for SEPAs substantive authority, such as decisions to mitigate or reject proposals as a result of SEPA. This part also contains procedures for appealing SEPA determinations to agencies or the courts. The city adopts the following sections of the WAC by reference:

(Ord. 697 § 7.1, 1984).

A. The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in existing ordinances, resolutions and plans of the city.
B. The city may attach conditions to a permit or approval for a proposal so long as:
1. Such conditions are necessary to mitigate specific probable adverse environmental impacts identified in environmental documents prepared pursuant to this chapter; and
2. Such conditions are in writing; and
3. The mitigation measures included in such conditions are reasonable and capable of being accomplished; and
4. The city has considered whether other local, state or federal mitigation measures applied to the proposal are sufficient to mitigate the identified impacts; and
5. Such conditions are based on one or more policies in subsection D of this section and cited in the license or other decision document.
C. The city may deny a permit or approval for a proposal on the basis of SEPA so long as:
1. A finding is made that approving the proposal would result in probable significant adverse environmental impacts that are identified in a final EIS or final supplemental EIS prepared pursuant to his chapter; and
2. A finding is made that there are no reasonable mitigation measures capable of being accomplished that are sufficient to mitigate the identified impact; and
3. The denial is based on one or more policies identified in subsection D of this section and identified in writing in the decision document.
D. The city designates and adopts by reference the following policies as the basis for the city’s exercise of authority pursuant to this section:
1. The city shall use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions, programs and resources to the end that the state and its citizens may:
a. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;
b. Assure for all people of Washington safe, healthful, productive and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
c. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;
d. Preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage;
e. Maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice;
f. Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and
g. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.
2. The city adopts by reference the policies in the following city codes, ordinances, resolutions and plans as exist or as amended in the future:
a. Kalama Comprehensive Plan;
b. Kalama Municipal Code as follows:
i. Chapter 15.08 of Title 15,
ii. Title 16,
iii. Title 17,
iv. Chapter 15.02 of Title 15.
E. Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to Chapter 15.08 of this code relating to shoreline management, when any proposal or action not requiring a decision of the city council is conditioned or denied on the basis of SEPA by a nonelected official, the decision shall be appealable to the city council. Such appeal may be perfected by the proponent or any aggrieved party by giving notice to the responsible official within ten days of the decision being appealed. Review by the city council shall be on a de novo basis. (Ord. 1029 § 4, 1999; Ord. 697 § 7.2, 1984).

A. The city, applicant for, or proponent of an action may publish a notice of action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080 for any action.
B. The form of the notice shall be substantially in the form provided in WAC 197-11-990. The notice shall be published by the city clerk-treasurer, applicant or proponent pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080. (Ord. 697 § 7.3, 1984).

This article contains rules for agency compliance with SEPA, including rules for charging fees under the SEPA process, designating environmentally sensitive areas, and listing agencies with environmental expertise. The city adopts the following sections of the WAC by reference as supplemented by this article:

The city also adopts the following forms and sections of the WAC by reference:

(Ord. 697 § 8.1, 1984).

The city shall require the following fees for its activities in accordance with the provisions of this chapter:
A. Threshold Determination. The city shall charge twenty-five dollars for threshold determinations. This fee shall be credited toward any future permit application fees associated with the proposal.
B. Environmental Impact Statement.
1. When the city is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an EIS and the responsible official determines that the EIS shall be prepared by employees of the city, the city may charge and collect a reasonable fee from any applicant to cover costs incurred by the city in preparing the EIS. The responsible official shall advise the applicant(s) of the projected costs from the EIS prior to actual preparation; the applicant shall post bond or otherwise ensure payment of such costs.
2. The responsible official may determine that the city will contract directly with a consultant for preparation of an EIS, or a portion of the EIS, for activities initiated by some persons or entity other than the city and may bill such costs and expenses directly to the applicant. Such consultants shall be selected by mutual agreement of the city and applicant after a call for proposals. The city may require the applicant to post bond or otherwise ensure payment of such costs.
3. If a proposal is modified so that an EIS is no longer required, the responsible official shall refund any fees collected under subdivision 1 or 2 of this subsection which remain after incurred costs are paid.
C. The city may collect a reasonable fee from an applicant to cover the cost of meeting the public notice requirements of this chapter relating to the applicant’s proposal.
D. The city shall not collect a fee for performing its duties as a consulted agency.
E. The city may charge any person for copies of any document prepared under this chapter, and for mailing the document, in a manner provided by RCW Chapter 42.17. (Ord. 697 § 8.2, 1984).